list_user_groups

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation and the object 'groups' indicates the kind of data returned, but the description does not disclose behavior for non-existent users, whether memberships are direct or resolved, or response/pagination details. It doesn't contradict anything but adds minimal behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the operational meaning, and the description is appropriately sized for a one-parameter list tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description explains the operation and the input sufficiently for basic invocation. However, it omits expected response format, error semantics, and membership-scope details, which an agent may need when integrating results with other tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (user_id, 'The user UUID'), and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the user whose groups are listed. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('groups') and qualifies scope ('a user belongs to'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_groups (all groups) and list_group_members (members of a group). The intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case—retrieving group memberships for a specific user—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as list_groups or list_group_members, nor when not to use it. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.